It is a bad sign…

When the opening line of your first Senate campaign ad is: I’m not a witch!
And then ends with a paean to hobbyist wiretapper Linda Tripp: I’m you.

That’s funny, because there is video tape of you saying you dabbled in witchcraft. Not to mention your crusade against masturbation. And the spending campaign money on things like gas, food, rent and bowling.

Of course, the parodies are at least as hilarious.
Don’t forget your 3d goggles for this one. Same link here (hat tip to knarly that my original link went dead)

55 Responses to “It is a bad sign…”

  1. knarlyknight Says:

    What a witchophobe.

  2. knarlyknight Says:

    The last video is gone.

    I offer you a replacement. But first, let me say that “I am not a farmer!”

  3. knarlyknight Says:

    Seems no one is home here. Maybe its safe to post some controversial links provided by Rense, for shcb’s edification: (I know James Delingpole is a dolt, but at least this time he stfu and let’s someone with credentials speak.)

    Also, this seems bizarre: If true, wow.

    Confirm or responsibly address shortcomings, arbitrary premature dismissals will not be taken seriously (JBC, that means you.)

  4. shcb Says:

    One of the criticisms of official panels that have looked into the global warming scam is how small a community it is/was. One report I read said there were only about 25 or 26 individuals involved. Now of course someone is going to bring up the thousands and thousands of scientists that have bought into this notion, but that was after the fact. This article has some flaws, there has been some warming, it was the reporting was just exaggerated.

  5. enkidu Says:

    make that 26 or 27 individuals?
    I suspect that wwnj will never be convinced, even if every last scientist on Earth declared him/herself convinced that climate change is real.

    In other news, one of the Republican Young Guns likes to play WWII dress up.
    As an SS officer.
    I know this will be a plus to certain folks (cough teabaggers and rethuglicans cough).

    watch it before the lawyers get to it! lolz

  6. enkidu Says:

    but why believe old Enkidu about Rich Iott and his hijinks?


    Seriously GOP, your big candidates of late are: a momma grizzly, a witch and a weekend nazi? C’mon! I know Halloween is coming, but really! I know, I know, tax cuts will revive the greatness of the Rei, er, uh grand old party?

    Fun fact: did you know that 40% of Obama’s stimulus was tax cuts? Another big chunk went to propping up state and local budgets (not nice to lay off millions of teachers, firefighters and policemen). Fact.

    Oh, right, sorry. Facts have such a liberal bias.

  7. shcb Says:

    Only one of those is a “big” candidate, the others have been made bigger than they are in reality, but that happens in every election, it’s just a question of what sticks and what doesn’t. In the case of the witch I think it is probably helping her, and momma grizzlys don’t much care. So you stand a chance of hurting one out of three.

  8. shcb Says:

    I get a kick out of liberalism, unfortunately people are dying here but my little homespun story is appropriate.

    You probably remember my prairie dog stories of a couple years ago, how I complained that all the politically correct folks (read liberals) in my neighborhood just couldn’t bring themselves to mass murder the little buggers, I on the other hand was Don Quixote like killing as many of the little guys as I could with my industrial strength pellet gun. Finally last spring the HOA decided enough was enough and brought in the pros and killed them all with wonderful pellets that magically turn into benzene gas with a little water added. Result of the mass murder? No more dogs, prairie that is.

    So now we have the same problem at the shop, over the last 5 or 6 years we have spent over $20,000 trying to “relocate” them, and “discourage” them, they won. So a week ago the decision was made to bring in the folks with the magic pellets.

    Sometimes you just can’t fuck around, you gotta do what you know has to be done.

    as long as the current administration is in power, the U.S. is not going to lend any meaningful assistance to Mexico to stop them. The borders are a national security issue, but the fact is that the Obama administration is playing the border as a wedge issue to woo Hispanic voters, and doesn’t care a whit about anything else on this issue. It won’t offer anything beyond words and token help, while it sues Arizona as a way to intimidate other border states into not amping up enforcement on their own. That’s the message of the Arizona lawsuit

  9. Smith Says:

    “Sometimes you just can’t fuck around, you gotta do what you know has to be done. ”

    Mass murder all the Mexicans with “magic pellets”? Mexicans are just like prairie dogs.

    “over the last 5 or 6 years we have spent over $20,000 trying to “relocate” them, and “discourage” them, they won. So a week ago the decision was made to bring in the folks with the magic pellets. ”

    I assume we are supposed to connect “them” with “Mexicans”, otherwise I really don’t see the point of your story being pared with a link about Mexicans.

  10. shcb Says:

    I wouldn’t think it would have to come to that. The similarity is in both cases of prairie dog extermination the feel gooders tried everything they could to fix the problem except fix the problem. They spent much money and much time and effort dancing around the issue, not wanting to upset one party or another. Eventually the reality that should have been dealt with had to be dealt with. By the time the decision to take care of the problem was reached it had gotten so out of hand there was and will be more collateral damage than was necessary. In the case of the soon to be dead dogs here at work the original population was in a two acre area of unused prairie, now it is over forty acres with much damage to landscape many more thousands will have to be spent repairing the damage, instead of a couple hundred dogs and a few rabbits dying, now there will be thousands of dogs and many more rabbits, snakes and other desirable critters dead.

    Both the Bush and Obama administrations have ignored the border problems for political expediency and now it is starting to boil over to the point that while we won’t exterminate Mexicans, that would be silly, many more will and are going to die in the crossfire than would have had we fixed the problem many moons ago.

  11. NorthernLite Says:

    Legalizing cannibas would be a good first step, or you guys can keep fighting this “war on drugs” for another 30 years and hundreds of billions of dollars.

    Do you know why you don’t have this problem along our border (Can/US) – the longest undefended border in the world? Because we have two things: a civilized society and our own kickass marijuana. It’s actually much better than Mexico’s. Much, much better.

    Until Mexico’s standard of living is raised and while weed is still illegal in the USA your southern border problems will live on.

  12. shcb Says:

    Legalization would be a good start, but there are other drugs coming across the border, and other illegal traffic. We really can’t do much about their ecconomic woes so until they fix their own problems we have to protect our interests.

  13. NorthernLite Says:

    Yeah that’s true, all drugs should be legalized. It’s a pointless war that only provides huge profits to gangsters and terrorists.

    Just seen this O’Donnell clip. Looks like a Palin moment…

  14. enkidu Says:

    Yup, we stand a chance of hurting the momma grizzly if we expose all her lil bear cubs as waffen SS re-enactors, air heads and criminals. On the other hand Reich Iott stands to solidify his base of right wing nut jobs, so perhaps a net plus for him? I am curious, he mentioned civil war re-enactments with his son… anyone want to bet if he was playing johnny reb or union? yeah…

    The witch from Delaware should have used one of her spells to make everyone forget her debate performance. moderator “name a recent supreme court decision you disagree with and why” Odoodle: “uh, I dunno?” Coons: “citizens united empowers corporations (and foreign corporations/countries like China) to throw our elections” Odoodle “shazzzam!”

    And I am getting pretty sick of the eliminationist rhetoric from the Teapublicans. Jes kill all them thar mud hut people, jes like your final solution fer them prairie dogs, hee hee by crackee! Hey maybe you could call up Unterfuhrer Iott and see if he has extensive experience mit der zeiklon-B, you know, just ‘re-enacting’.

    this fat rich douchebag is ‘jes kiddin!’

    or maybe this guy was ‘jes kiddin!’

    Perhaps if Mr Williams hadn’t been so dang angry (and drunk to boot) when he took off to go murder some folks at the ACLU and Tides Foundation (in the wee hours of Sunday morning – note to Teapublican dumsh!t, they aren’t open on Sunday, duh) so enraged by Glen Beck’s gobbldyguk of reichwing nonsense that he was pulled over for erratic driving. Or was he just looking to those second amendment remedies we hear so much about?

    And NL, i beg to differ, CA has some very nice ganga as well. We took a trip up to Eureka and when I got out of the car, a gust of wind came in from the hills laden with pungent scents. That aint chaparral!

  15. NorthernLite Says:

    enk, no argument there, Cali produces some nice stuff! Coincidentally our best comes from the West Coast too. Gawd damn hippies! ;)
    I meant ours is better than Mexico’s. I’ve been there a few times and wasn’t impressed at all with the quality.

  16. shcb Says:

    it’s fun to toss something out there just to see how much smith and enky can twist it out of recognition

  17. enkidu Says:

    And momma grizzly’s lil cub Joey Miller never has private goons handcuffing people for asking questions while their camera is running (lets see *that* footage! bet the thugs deleted the whole thing to cover it up). Its a school, a public venue but they ‘arrest’ him for tresspassing and when they shove the reporter and he shoves back, they detain him for half an hour until the police arrive.
    gee, skinheads for security? teabaggers are just normal folk, right?
    (if you’re a waffen ss re-enactor, witch, hypocrite or criminal, don’t forget bigot!)

    More wwnj threats: in WA a wwnj is arrested for driving by a Sen P Murray event (three times) and waving knives, then a meat cleaver. Nope, no pattern here. Nope.

    wwnj, do go on about your genocidal plans on our southern border o wise old white guy.

  18. shcb Says:

    Nothing genocidal, don’t know what gave you that idea. Just want to kill the bad guys. The point is that letting the problem fester just means more good people (rabbits and snakes in my example) will die than was needed.

  19. enkidu Says:

    The point is you vomit up a long-winded anecdote about your troubles with prairie dogs. With the final solution being to poison them en masse. Then you segue into a screed about how the mud hut people du jour is teh bad. And yes, crime is bad (duh).

    Smith pointed out the obvious. That you are genocidal wwnj.

    Kill all teh Bad Guys™!!!1!!1!
    sound familiar?
    We found teh WMDz1!!1!!!!

    (this is your cue to call me a bigot or fucker or asshole (as usual))

  20. Smith Says:

    Damn it, enky! Stop fucking assholes. God frowns on sodomy.

  21. shcb Says:

    No, just not a very good reader. I’ve come to realize you are politically and economically illiterate but now it seems you just don’t read very well, let me rephrase, you don’t comprehend very well.

  22. enkidu Says:

    tut tut, stoopid libs won’t play my game
    so what was smith supposed to draw from your homey anecdote about them furry mud hut critters? Your solution is to poison em all mit der zyklon-B (have you hooked up with Reich Iott, der Waffen SS ‘re-enactor’? I bet he’s into a bit of sodomy, you two sound like a match made in Nuremburg). You then make ominous grunting noises about how this would be yer Final Solution fer them dang mudhut π!@@&#$ to the south. Seems like the nuns didn’t do a good job w yur edumakkkashun. But please enlighten us dumb libs as to the true meaning of your genocidal fantasies.

    smith, did you just read that article about how women who have anal sex have more orgasms? Slate (I left it up on the iPad for the wife to enjoy… hint hint! ;)

  23. Smith Says:

    I saw that. I believe the article suggested that having an orgasm made women more willing then allow anal sex. Perhaps being a good “orator” can lead to other things.

  24. enkidu Says:

    I’ve been an independent voter my entire life, actually NA (it said No Affiliation, but I always took it to mean None of those Assholes) but I am finally thinking of joining a major party.

    This is the first political philosophy in decades that resonates with me:

  25. Smith Says:

    I support his views on “Shoe Marriage”.

    Here are two more takes on O’Donnell:,18284/

  26. NorthernLite Says:

    Speaking of O’Donnell:


  27. enkidu Says:

    Well, to be honest I could only name 5 of the 6 (I missed out on the right to petition for redress, so sue me). And when asked to name them all, I don’t think Mr Coons was able to name them all either. I wonder if the witch could have named even one right enumerated in the first amendment? I don’t want my kids going to your madrassas (or whatever you want to call em). thx.

    Amazing she is only losing by 22 points or so.

  28. enkidu Says:

    2 damn UP!

  29. shcb Says:

    Except she’s right, there is nothing in the first amendment that would preclude the teaching of creationism in a public school as an alternative to evolution. They are both theories, hence the “theory of evolution”. The first amendment just states that the state can’t play favorites.

  30. Smith Says:

    “Except she’s right”
    “First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion, O’Donnell asked: “You’re telling me that’s in the First Amendment?””

    Except she’s not.

    Oh look, shcb appears to be attempting to equivocate the word “theory”. How surprising.

    “The first amendment just states that the state can’t play favorites.”

    Creationism (which is not science) privileges religions that have a “divine creator” myth over those that do not.

    Hurf Durf activists judges, blah blah blah

  31. shcb Says:

    You can use your GI bill to join a seminary so there is no problem using government money to pay for education, Congress and the military have chaplains so there is no problem with the government spending funds to promote religion in general. The problem with government spending money on religion is limited to children because the anti religious people (not liberals, I know liberals that are very religious) the anti religious people found out several hundred years after the pro religious people you gotta train em young. Now when you are that far behind the easiest way to catch up is to us the power of government, another lesson the anti’s learned from the pro’s.

    You can’t prove God does or doesn’t exist, it is equally wrong to stamp either side out of the discussion. When I was in Catholic school the nuns told me there was no such thing as evolution, when I was in public school they told me there was no such thing as God, seems to me neither was searching for the truth as a true scientist would.

    You kind of played fast and loose with that quote :)

  32. NorthernLite Says:

    Evolution is based on science, therefore it belongs in the classroom and in science books.

    Creationism is based on a fairy tale, that some people choose to believe.

    And careful, shcb, cuz once you start allowing jesus in the classroom muhamed won’t be too far behind. So basically O’Donnell is advocating the teaching of Islam in schools.

  33. enkidu Says:

    NL like I said, I don’t want my kids going to wwnj’s madrassas (or catholic schools… wwnj’s edumakkkashun hasn’t proven to be worth spit)

    science is taught in schools, religion in houses of worship

    creation myth? it’s turtles all the way down baby!

    wwnj – so when are you going to enlighten all us poor dum libs about what you actually *did* mean when you equated prairie dogs with mexicans and advocated just poisoning em all? (or whatever form of genocide struck you as ‘funny’)

  34. NorthernLite Says:

    This closing debate statement is the most passionate I’ve ever seen:

    Gave me goose bumps.

  35. Smith Says:

    Wow, shcb, that is the biggest load of content free bullshit I have ever seen. Good job. I guess that is what happens when an illogical mind tries to parse a discussion on science. Explains a lot about your global warming denialist dreck.

  36. shcb Says:

    Nl, I agree with you to a point, evolution is based on science and creationism is based on faith, but faith is usually just something science hasn’t explained yet. I am relatively sure that at some point science will prove the existence of God, of course he will cease to be God because he will become scientific fact at that point, and it won’t be a bearded old white guy sitting on a throne, it will be a dimension or force that we simply don’t understand now. But it will explain things like ghosts and miracles, the afterlife will likely be just another phase of life like childhood to adulthood or the nine months we spend in our mother’s bellies. I think kids should be exposed to the concept of religion at least to the point that they wonder about things they or anyone doesn’t understand else why would we expect them to discover. I understand there is a moving target between that level of discussion and preaching in the classroom but shutting it out completely is just as wrong as shutting out the discussion of evolution was in my early years in Catholic schools. The level of discussion want in schools would include all faiths, when it gets specific to a particular faith other than just as a comparison, then yes, it belongs in Sunday school.

    Enky, go back up and read what I said, I’m not that deep, you have to read both posts, I have faith you can piece it all together if you try.

  37. enkidu Says:

    fuck, now we have to cover religion in science class… how many religions? lessee, jesus, mohamed, buddha, hindu, shinto, mormonism, zeus, wotan, whatever the aborigines in australia believe… of all the thousands of gods, how do you choose which ones to cover in science class? ghosts and miracles? lol

    seriously wwnj, explain how your homey anecdote about prairie dogs is to poison, as mexicans is to ________ analogy is not what you were intending. Show of hands, who thinks this was the usual genocidal wwnj ‘thinking’. By his postings, certainly Mr Smith. NL. knarly. You seem to be the only person in possession of your brilliant insights. So please share it with us dum libz. Because it is pretty clear to reasonable people you were talking about Killing all the Brown, errr Bad Guyz!!!1!!1!! Oh right, just kidding about genocidal jokes n stuff.

  38. NorthernLite Says:


    “it will be a dimension or force that we simply don’t understand now.” – I actually like that you said that. But then you lost me when you said kids should be introduced to religion in the classroom.

    As enk said, which one? There are so many, can they all be true? Is there any real evidence that these “gods” existed?

    Science in schools. Gods in churches, mosques etc.

  39. knarlyknight Says:

    Perhaps religion has a place in science class, in relation to the psychological need to believe in things greater than oneself that has been a part of human* existence from the beginning. There are enough common elements in (virtually) all religions to enable thought provoking discussions in class without having to get into details about how one religion** differs from another.

    * actually, recent study of the brain has determined that thoughts of spirituality originate in the more “primitive” regions of the brain that humans have in common with other animals, suggesting the possibility that other beings (e.g. sheep) may have a sense of spirituality or wonder about greater things despite the apparent inability to process such sensations cognitively.

    ** for an interestting excercise on possible net censorship / possible law enforcement or government intervention in freedom of religion, try to (WARNING – Make sure you have good virus software running before attenmpting this…) locate a Rastafarian Group in your community to attend one of their “church” services via Google or other internet search. What you’ll find is that sites are blocked, unavailable, taken down, just can’t be accessed, or are so full of virus threats as to be non-functioning…

  40. shcb Says:

    I don’t think you have to get into it that deep, at least not in k-12 just a general description that there is a “theory” that God exists and we should keep an open mind about such things. At that age level you hit the top three or four and explain there are many, many more. When you are discussing any subject at that age level you don’t go into great detail, you touch on capitalism and socialism and communism but you don’t get into the nitty gritty, that is for college or even graduate work. I’m not saying it should be given even time as a scientific theory like evolution, a few days in a semester would be plenty. If nothing else it removes the “we can’t talk about that here” aspect of religion, what drives a kid to do something more than telling him he can’t? There certainly should be a point where the teacher can stop a preaching high schooler and say “take that up with your minister”.

    “…Can they all be true…” that is a good point of separation, that is place to send it back to Sunday school.

    Evidence gods exist, there is evidence things we don’t or didn’t understand exist and they have been attributed to gods, lightning for instance. A good subject line would be at one time we thought lightning was an act of God, now we understand it a little better, but not totally. So ghosts, ESP, even dreams or visions, are they acts of God as lightning was thought or is there and explanation?

    Ever wonder where “separation of church and state” came from? Thomas Jefferson said it because he didn’t like a state law that allowed towns to levy taxes to support the church the majority went to. That is a proper use of separation of church and state. The government was giving priority to one of those many religions over others, as England did to the official church of England. Separation of church and state has never meant to drive religion out of government, just not give an advantage to one over another.

    Ok Enky, keep up. The prairie dogs are the bad guys, gang members, they are undesirable. The rabbits and snakes are the good Mexicans, the farmers and store keepers, we don’t want to kill them but understand some will die. We want to neutralize (kill or capture) the bad guys (same as kill prairie dogs) we want to get them all, so yes I want to commit “genocide” on one group while sparing the other as much as possible. My point was when you let these problems fester you end up killing more of both than if you take care of the problem early, but since in both the prairie dog and border cases we didn’t take care of the problem early, more bad guys (prairie dogs) and more good Mexican farmers and storekeepers (rabbits and snakes) will die.

  41. enkidu Says:

    tell you what, you can teach ___________ (name of whacky religion here) in the public schools if we get equal time for his noodliness (now with extra pirates)

    it’s just a theory, right? Pastafarianism might be the delicious answer you seek

  42. shcb Says:

    discussions of individual religions probably doesn’t belong in a science class anyway, maybe social studies, but the existance of god in general or a scientific explination of what people attribute to god might.

  43. NorthernLite Says:

    I probably wouldn’t have a problem with that, nothing worng with having the kids debate things, as long as it was presented the right way.

    I would have a problem if it was presented as “2000 years ago this (whatever) happened, and life was created by…” you know, bs like that. Still, that’s probably best left to the churches. Tax dollars shouldn’t be used to promote any religion.

  44. shcb Says:


  45. knarlyknight Says:

    A few thoughts. First, you guys could benefit from doing a little research (aka education) before offering your opinions, e.g.

    What is meant by “teaching about
    religion” in the public schools?
    The following statements distinguish between
    teaching about religion in public schools and
    religious indoctrination:
    1. The school’s approach to religion is academic,
    not devotional.
    2. The school may strive for student awareness of
    religions, but should not press for student
    acceptance of any one religion.
    3. The school may sponsor study about religion,
    but may not sponsor the practice
    of religion.
    4. The school may expose students to a diversity
    of religious views, but may not impose any
    particular view.
    5. The school may educate about all religions, but
    may not promote or denigrate any religion.
    6. The school may inform the student about various beliefs, but should not seek to
    conform him or her to any particular belief.

    That’s from this document, all of which seems reasonable to me;

    Also, the posts above seem to seriously underestimate the intelligence, or potential intelligence, of students. Interesting article:

    Two years ago, Quebec’s Liberal government introduced sweeping changes in the way it taught religion in public and private schools.
    In the past, Quebec educators had to choose between offering three curriculum options: one based on Catholicism, one on Protestantism or one on secular ethics.
    Quebec’s new ethics and religious culture curriculum — which, in sharp contrast to B.C., is mandatory for all students between Grades 1 and 11 — teaches about 10 major world religions and also focuses on values, which are available to the religious and non-religious alike.
    In the early days especially, some traditional Quebecers protested; raising serious charges the new curriculum was teaching “moral relativism” and “creeping secularism” and taking away parents’ right to govern their children’s religious beliefs.
    The bold new Quebec curriculum, titled Ethique et Culture Religieuse, is considered a model for the globe, where immigration and telecommunications are making cultures increasingly pluralistic and diverse.
    Among other things, Quebec’s curriculum aims to combat widespread antagonism toward new Canadian immigrants. Researchers found suspicion was largely based on confusion about minority religious practices, including why some Muslim women wear head scarves, baptized Sikhs carry kirpans (ceremonial knives) and Orthodox Jewish men wear their hair in tassels.
    The verdict on Quebec’s contentious new curriculum came in this month: Once-wary Quebecers are shifting; most now give the once-radical program a thumbs-up.
    Young Quebec adults, those aged 18 to 24, are among the most enthusiastic. Seventy-five per cent of young adults told Leger Marketing pollsters they approve of the new curriculum, compared to a provincewide average of 66 per cent.
    In other words, young Quebecers who have grown up sitting in classes beside students from around the planet still want to know what Christianity and other world religions — which are a source of meaning to billions — have to offer.
    It’s as if Quebec’s youth have realized, when it comes to religion and values, the truth of Anglo-American philosopher Alfred North Whitehead’s aphorism: “Not ignorance, but ignorance of ignorance is the death of knowledge.”

    End Excerpt

  46. shcb Says:

    “ A few thoughts. First, you guys could benefit from doing a little research (aka education) before offering your opinions, e.g.” Did we wake up on the wrong side of the bed? The article below this outburst is kind of what I was saying.

    The problem here is many of us in the US understand the Constitution, we understand that what the Freedom Forum article says is true, but many don’t, the writers of the Huffington Post for example. They are claiming O’Donnell doesn’t know what she is talking about in regards to separation of church and state when she does. And there was an audible gasp from the law students! Then people like Smith misquote her, people like the ACLU take school districts to court and on and on, at some point it all gets so muddied that even though there is nothing wrong with discussing religion in schools legally or morally it doesn’t get discussed.

  47. NorthernLite Says:

    I guess you could give her the benefit of thinking she is actually so enlightened about the Constitution that’s why she seemed stunned Coons was referencing the separation of church and state.

    But then again, she was unable to name supreme court ruling she disagreed with and also unable to name a democratic senator.

    So while you may give her credit for being a constitutional wizard, I’m afraid I’m just going to go ahead and think she’s nothing but a Palin type airhead who just spouts out phrases and talking points to appeal to a certain demographic, without really knowing wtf she’s talking about. And the people who support her don’t care that she’s clueless, they just want to hear words like “constitution”, “cut taxes”, “socialism”…

  48. shcb Says:

    Agreed she isn’t the smartest person to ever run for office, she kind of reminds me of Diana De Gette here in Colorado, yet De Gette keeps getting reelected so I guess great intellect isn’t a prerequisite. This seems to be a new tactic of the press, to try and play gotcha to candidates by asking them questions like what is your least favorite court rulling. At some point they will all come up with their standard memorized answers to the questions and will all sound like Miss America contestants dreaming of world peace, but that won’t mean that they understand the issues any better, I’d rather have someone fumble over a gotcha question and understand the Constitution that she hopes to defend then give glowing pre-rehearsed answers to meaningless questions.

    What I find interesting is that she was correct with her assertion that the concept commonly referred to as separation of church and state does not find its home in the Constitution, but somehow a room full of aspiring young lawyers didn’t. One would imagine that the reason these young lawyers don’t understand the Constitution is because the old lawyers that are teaching them don’t either. This is part of the problem, the lawyers who were advising the school districts believe it is unconstitutional for these districts to even discuss religion, or at least that they won’t be able to defend that fact in court.

  49. NorthernLite Says:

    But she didn’t assert that – it was after that fact that her supporters and Fox News were like, well, technically, she may be right.

    If she would have said, “I don’t think that’s the case because…” and then explained why she didn’t agree with what has pretty much been a given for a helluva long time, then I wouldn’t think she’s an airhead and maybe she does know quite a bit about the constitution and sounds like she has thought about it a lot.

    But that’s not what happened. At all.

    She sounded completely surprised that anyone would ever think that separation of church/state has been interpreted for years.

    I’ll solidly agree with you on this though : “I guess great intellect isn’t a prerequisite [to getting elected].”

  50. shcb Says:

    I agree that would have been better, and someone like Newt Gingrich probably would have phrased it as you have. I don’t think she’s an airhead, but she’s a lot closer to an airhead than she is to someone of Gingrich’s intellect. I didn’t watch the video of this exchange because I found in the little tiny bits I’ve seen of her but she does come across as not very bright, but when I read the Huffington Post version the wording she used was similar to how many conservatives would have said what she said. As you know there becomes a sort of code when the same people talk about the same thing all the time, this doesn’t excuse it but it is a reality. I think she knew exactly what she was saying, and she was saying exactly what I said, she just didn’t it very well. To be a good politician you really need to be a good orator, she isn’t. I’m really not that impressed with her but I don’t think she’s nearly as bad as everyone makes her out to be. If she were elected, which I think is very unlikely, she certainly won’t be one of our best elected officials, but she would serve as an “R” on the tally sheet.

  51. shcb Says:

    Let me expand on that just a little bit, I do biggest problem here was she didn’t know her audience. If she had been talking at a tea party rally everyone in the crowd would’ve known exactly what she was saying, but she wasn’t talking at a tea party rally, she was at a university talking to a bunch of kids who are being lectured and day out by liberal professors. They simply talk and a different set of code words that she is used to and the crowd she is used to talking to. Now a savvy politician understands this and changes his wording and his rhetoric to match the situation even though what he is saying is technically correct in either case. I don’t think she’s all that savvy of a politician and I think she’s way over her head, but so is our Vice President.

  52. shcb Says:

    Correction-“ I do think her biggest problem” that’s the problem with dictation software, you read it as you’re talking it all looks good until you go back and read it again.

  53. Smith Says:

    Applying Occam’s razor leads us to conclude that she is simply a dumbass, much like a certain racist with a four letter user name.

  54. shcb Says:

    She wouldn’t be the first dumbass elected to Congress

  55. enkidu Says:

    ah yes wwnj, your explanation of the whole mudhut prairie dog thing makes perfect sense! Your tireless defense of those without any rights, your impassioned anecdotes about minority groups, support for hispanic american groups like la raza and opposition to police state laws like the one in Arizona are legendary.

    o wait, none of that is true and you’re the same old racist fucking bigot
    my bad

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.